Abstract
Relationships between teachers, children and university lecturers must be positive, productive and professional to optimise the learning and development of student teachers in school-based experiences. The limited research into these ‘high stakes’ relationships mostly explores alternative approaches. This paper explores the perceptions of student teachers and associate teachers as they consider the value of an alternative practicum supervision approach. The lecturers supervised and mentored the student teachers in all of their practicum experiences. Findings indicate a clear preference for this approach, mostly because of reduced stress, especially in the final practicum. The lecturer was a stable influence with a greater depth of knowledge of the student’s learning journey. The later visits were future-focused, identifying next steps in developing both strengths and weaknesses. There are some current examples of this approach, but these participants suggest that it should be common practice because of the value of the professional conversations that occurred.
Introduction
It is accepted that successful practicum experiences are of value in learning teaching for initial teacher education (pre-service) student teachers (Sim, 2011; Ussher, 2011) and that developing effective working relationships with schools and associate teachers during these practicum experiences is a critical element in the perceptions of success (Ferrier-Kerr, 2005; Ussher, 2010). However, no matter how successful the practicum may be, it is considered a time of stress for those involved because of the need to accommodate the student teacher within the classroom programme and to prepare and present for evaluative purposes. For associate teachers, the reasons for accepting a student teacher into their classrooms vary but presence of a student teacher creates pressure to provide opportunities for learning teaching, while at the same time fulfilling obligations to the children and school. Several researchers have reported practicum experiences as a stressful time for the students involved in their studies (Caires, Almeida, & Vieira, 2012; Murray-Harvey et al., 2000). In fact, typically student teachers learned how to manage their associate teachers (Maynard, 2000) so that the focus is on opportunities for them to ‘practice and learn by doing (teaching)’ (Borko & Mayfield, 1995, p. 515). Meijer, De Graaf and Meirink (2011) reported that for, ‘most student teachers’ development is not about steady improvement of practice but is a rocky path’ (p. 127) with moments of tension and periods where development is minimal. Such stresses, tensions and moments can be minimised by the university lecturer ‘as a key facilitator of the ecological transitions of student teachers’ (Caires et al., 2012, p. 173), in many instances, helping the student teacher to ‘see beyond the lions in the den’.
Recent research shows that where student teachers develop a sense of belonging to a school and an extended community of practice, learning teaching is enhanced (Grudnoff, 2011; Ussher, 2010). For the student teachers, treating the whole school as their community gives them greater efficacy and professional agency. For the associate teacher, it reduces their aloneness and provides opportunities for their role, responsibilities and capabilities to be affirmed by principal, other teachers and visiting university lecturers (Ferrier-Kerr, 2005; Walkington, 2007). This sense of ‘village’ (Ussher, 2010) has a spin off for schools, teachers and student teachers. For a university lecturer, it creates greater coherence, collaboration and community.
Building partnerships and community is always a ‘work under construction’ (Zeegers, 2005, p. 355) for those involved in practicum experiences. However, with the development of community there are more opportunities for the student teachers to engage in professional learning conversations with others. Such conversations are reported as critical to the development of teachers by providing opportunities to reflect, theorise practice and construct knowledge (Beck & Kosnik, 2001; Ferrier-Kerr, 2005; Hoben, 2006; Le Cornu, Mayer, & White, 2001; Lind, 2004; Sim, 2011; White, 2006). However, in ‘most student teacher- [associate] teacher dyads, conversations rarely include in-depth exploration of issues of teaching and learning’ (Borko & Mayfield, 1995, p. 515). Timperley et al.’s (1998) research highlighted that associate teachers must be trained and supported in their role, so they can prioritise conversations linking theory and practice. On the other hand, university lecturers are able to bring the university experience to the classroom. While many conversations between university lecturers and student teachers are ‘frequently too rushed and based on insufficient data about the student teachers' teaching’ (Borko & Mayfield, 1995, p. 515), mostly they … represent a significant opportunity for self exploration, exploration of the teaching profession, mutual knowledge and the strengthening of complicity relationships amongst student teachers, their supervisors and colleagues. These aspects may indeed help to thwart the communication problems, competitiveness and individualism frequently emerging within the group. (Caires et al., 2012, p. 173)
Mentors play a critical role in practicum experiences and for most student teachers their school-based mentor changes for each practicum as they experience a variety of school settings. This may create issues of authority and ownership as the advice and support of their associate teacher is significant to the student teachers’ perceptions of success (Caires et al., 2012; Ussher, 2011). Associate teachers take on their role in good faith, providing pastoral care, expert practical guidance and feedback on teaching. Timperley et al.’s (1998) study showed that the associates were, ‘better at eliciting student teacher’s theories than they were articulating theory-practice links’ (p. 4), giving higher priority to organising practical teaching experiences rather than theorising. The university lecturer’s role is to support the student teacher and associate teacher in each practicum. Much of this support comes through mentoring conversations focused on exploring progress and achievements and reflecting on practice and learning (Le Cornu et al., 2001; Lind, 2004). As mentors, the university lecturers also support the student teachers through challenging and difficult relationship and placement situations (Le Cornu, 2009), advising them about attitudes and skills appropriate for teaching and learning. Responsibilities for the university lecturers include working with the associate teachers as practitioner experts to better articulate what they know and do (Zeegers, 2005) as well as being cognisant of the ‘needs and position of the novice’ student teacher and how to cater for these needs within the ‘demands of today’s busy school environment’ (White, 2006, p. 10).
The development of effective learning partnerships within a community of practice is important for success in a practicum experience (White, 2006). Minimising stress, adopting the whole school as the practicum site, engaging in a wide range of professional learning conversations and attending to the responsibilities associated with mentoring will go some way to developing these partnerships. Practicum must be seen as a time to both practice theory and theorise practice, so the participants must understand the reciprocity of each partner and be prepared to challenge and be challenged (Timperley, 2001). The associate teacher and university lecturer must work together for the benefit of the student teacher, ‘to identify areas of strength and weakness’ (Brown, 2006, p. 39) as integral to the process of providing fair and equitable learning and assessment within the practicum (Brown, 2006; Walkington, 2004; White, 2006). This should include moderating between different teachers and schools across the practicum experiences. A model where supportive and collaborative partnerships develop and where the expertise of the school-based teacher educator complements that of the university-based teacher educator is suggested as ideal (Ferrier-Kerr, 2005; Lind, 2004; Walkington, 2004).
The study
Participants who responded to the surveys.
The associate teachers involved in the second and third practicum periods, 15 different individuals in total, were invited to take part in the study and to complete the same online survey as the students at the conclusion of the practicum. Four teachers responded during the second practicum and seven following the third (total 11/15). One group of three associates also chose to meet as a focus group at the conclusion of the second practicum to share their thoughts with one researcher.
The school-based experiences within the distance teacher education programme included 24 placement days in a base school throughout the first year of study. This one-day per week placement was then followed by a four-week practicum at the end of the year in a different school. In the second year, student teachers spent 12 more placement days in their base school and then completed a six-week practicum. The third practicum was for eight weeks during the first semester of their final year of study giving a cumulative total of 126 days of school-based experiences. Most students were paired with three different classroom teachers, at different year levels, in three different schools during the practicum experiences.
While this teacher education programme is essentially a distance programme, an important component is that all students must attend on-campus block courses in each of the three years of their degree. They attend for varying periods in February, July and August in their first year, then twice in their second year and a further three times in their final year. For the students, this created up to eight opportunities for them to meet face-to-face with their visiting lecturers. Typically, they met briefly two or three times rather than all eight times.
The researchers (university lecturers) visited each of their assigned students in their local area at least five times, four of which were for evaluative purposes, once during each of the first and second practicum periods and twice during the third practicum. Each evaluative visit included a conversation with the student teacher, an in-class observation of the student teacher engaged in a teaching sequence, and a conversation with the associate teacher. In some variations, a triadic conversation was also included. The researchers also had digital communication with both students and associate teachers via phone or computer for liaison purposes early in the practicum. This visiting sequence deviated from the normal pattern in this programme whereby each year the evaluative visits would have been carried out by a different lecturer. The placement of students throughout the North Island meant that lecturers had to travel varying distances for each visit – up to 1000 km return trip.
The findings
This section is divided into five parts: responses gathered from student teachers and associate teachers during the second practicum, then responses gathered from both groups during the third practicum followed by themes associated directly with the student teachers, associate teachers and finally the university lecturers. The findings are the result of an interpretative analysis of the responses to the open questions in the survey with some additional data from the closed questions. The comparisons and overall themes will be discussed in the discussion section.
The second-year practicum experience
Eight student teachers completed the online survey in 2010, all strongly agreeing with this practicum evaluative visiting strategy, indicating it was a positive experience for them. Of the four associate teachers who completed the survey, one agreed with the strategy, two were unsure and the fourth did not respond to this question. The four associate teachers all had more than seven years of classroom teaching experience, were experienced school leaders, and three of them were experienced associate teachers guiding at least four student teachers in the past.
Benefits
Most students identified the initial liaison phone call as being a supportive component of the experience providing a focused opportunity to discuss current progress and address queries in confidence early in the practicum. When reflecting on the evaluative visit, by far the most common theme for the student teachers was them being more relaxed and the observation being less stressful. Overall students felt more comfortable, confident and could ‘act naturally’ (ST3-10) 1 which made it a more positive experience. They reported this as occurring because of the established professional relationship they had with their lecturer and because they knew each other personally before the observation visit occurred. For these student teachers, it was easier talking about practice and asking for advice, which they then took more seriously as the lecturer gave the information from a position of knowledge about their strengths and weaknesses. They liked that their lecturer was involved in their ‘whole journey’ (ST6-10) and hence had a more accurate and trusted picture of their growth.
The four associates reported similar benefits highlighting rapport, feedback and progress based on the lecturer’s knowledge of the student. Specifically, AT1-10 wrote about the lecturer’s ability to identify strengths and weaknesses of the student quickly and ‘act to make improvements or draw on the strengths’. The associates were assured by the student teachers of the quality of their lecturers and were comfortable working with them.
Importantly, the students also reported that as they were more relaxed they could concentrate and ensure that the learning environment was authentic for the children rather than ‘trying to over-succeed’ (ST3-10), presenting a more consistent lesson. Both students and associates suggested that this different approach would be a more efficient use of the lecturers’ time and they would enjoy and benefit from observing the growth of the same student and be able to give more meaningful support and advice. Overall, there was no increased workload or time commitment reported for students or associates and they recommended that the strategy should remain the same in the future. The student teachers felt valued and that the lecturer was interested in them personally. They were fully supportive of the strategy.
Challenges
Of the 12 participants who completed the 2010 online survey, eight reported unconditionally no challenges or limitations. One student and one associate stated a preference for a face-to-face liaison visit over the initial phone call. They felt this should be an option to allow observation of classroom dynamics and sighting of planning early in the practicum, if such matters were of concern. Others added a proviso raising awareness to potential clashes of personality and ‘preconceived ideas about a student and developing certain expectations around these’ (ST7-10), including the influence and impact on judgment of the practicum. Student teachers also commented on the two different roles of support and evaluation undertaken by these lecturers and how this may be a challenge for student and lecturer. It required an adjustment to discussion because these lecturers were both liaison and support ‘mentors’ at the start of the practicum and then later they were ‘judge and critic’ (ST6-10). The only overall recommendation from these participants was about a change of time spent by the lecturer with student and associate.
The third-year practicum experience
Seven of the 2010 group of student teachers completed the online survey in 2011, five rating this practicum evaluative visiting experience as strongly agree, one agreed and one strongly disagreed. 2 As this was an anonymous survey, there is no way of connecting the 2010 results with individuals completing the 2011 survey. Of the seven associate teachers who completed the survey, five strongly agreed with the strategy, one agreed and the seventh did not respond to this question. Six of the associate teachers had more than seven years of classroom teaching experience and one was a relative novice. Four were experienced or very experienced school leaders, and four of them were experienced or very experienced associate teachers supporting at least four student teachers in the past. To balance this experience, three of the teachers were novice associates with no school leadership experience.
Benefits
While the words may have been slightly different between the seven student teachers, common sentiments are echoed through the words of ST2-11: Having Wendy visit as an evaluative lecturer I believed benefitted me in terms of the feedback I received. Having the same person who has been a part of my journey from the beginning, knowing my strengths and weaknesses has been able to help put my puzzle pieces together through observation and feedback from all three practicums. I have taken on board and valued the feedback as to me it means a lot more as Wendy has a greater knowledge, understanding and appreciation for my entire journey. The students got a calm and confident student teacher the day Bill came, as I was able to carry on and not be nervous with him watching me. The lesson was able to flow more freely and I could just be myself. Likewise for my AT. I was not a mess before the visit and felt in full control over what I was doing. It was wonderful having conversations with someone who knew the student and who had seen their progress over time.
When writing about others, the associate teachers reported the main benefits to the student teachers related to their confidence and focus on meaningful practice, growth and improvements. Three of the associate teachers also highlighted how the children benefitted through a range of reasons, including the calm approach of the student throughout the observation lesson. Overall, the 14 participants involved with the third-year practicum were very positive about the benefits of this strategy for themselves and others.
Challenges
As with the 2010 survey, a majority of those surveyed in 2011 reported no challenges or limitations (9/14 = 64%). Those five who reported a challenge included issues of bias and less objective feedback, this being one person’s opinion (lecturer), and pressures of developing a coherent teaching programme for the student. When considering others involved in this visiting strategy, the only comments relevant to the study were made by two associate teachers who mentioned the issues of meeting established expectations from previous practica and the implications for possible personality conflict between student teacher and lecturer. Twelve of the participants reported this strategy as not impacting negatively on time and workload commitments. Comments written by two of the associate teachers highlighted that time and workload are increased with every student teacher in their classroom, so this strategy was not an influencing factor: ‘when you agree to have a student teacher in the classroom you understand that they will be more workload and time, but to ensure a successful evaluation for the student teacher it is worth it’ (AT4-11).
The next sections compare what the three groups of participants found to be of benefit or challenging for them with what they suggested should be retained or changed as a result of their experience. These issues are dealt with firstly from a student teacher perspective and then from the perspective of the associate teachers.
The practicum experience for the student teachers
The most common theme from the responses of the eight student teachers involved over the two years was that of support for this practicum visiting strategy. Overall, over two-thirds of the participants indicated that they strongly agreed with the concept by recommending that everything ‘remain the same’, that nothing should change. They reported that the entire process was absolutely valuable and that no modifications should be made. I found the process extremely beneficial to my personal growth as a teacher and although I have considered it from many angles, I totally endorse the process and believe it has had a positive effect [on] my perception and experience of practicum evaluative visits and I would recommend it continue with future student. (ST7-10) I am strongly agreeing to having the same evaluative lecturer all the way through. I feel this is important as they know us, and they are helping us to grow in this profession. It was more relaxing, interesting listening to their feedback, and that feedback was taken seriously. (ST3-10)
Being students studying at a distance, it was clear that phone calls by the lecturers to themselves and their associates were of value. Such phone calls became the starting point of the professional conversations for each practicum. The importance of opportunities to engage in professional, in-depth conversations about their own development with a lecturer who knew of and was involved with their growth, progress and learning journey was highlighted in both years: Wendy has become more of a mentor for me and therefore the feedback, advice and discussions with her have been far more beneficial for me. I have found them to be honest, truthful and completely relevant as they relate to my entire journey from start to finish as opposed to just one little snapshot in time, which as I have come to appreciate can be within a circumstance that is not a true reflection of your abilities and strengths. The same evaluative lecturer has the ability to take these into account having knowledge from previous years and observations to put together a complete picture for us, a far more valuable tool in terms of helping us to grow and develop as trainee and beginner teachers (ST2-11) I have really enjoyed having the same evaluative lecturer in consecutive years, and I would recommend this to any students. The only possible drawback I could potentially envisage would be a personality clash between student and lecturer (ST7-11)
The practicum experience for the associate teachers
Nearly half of these experienced associate teachers strongly agreed with this alternate visiting strategy. Only two reported they were unsure. Nearly all associates who responded had more than seven years of classroom teaching experience and most of them were experienced school leaders. Over half were either very experienced or experienced associate teachers across a range of pre-service teacher education providers, so they did have a strong foundation on which to make their informed comments. These associate teachers ranged from one with 27 years of classroom and leadership experience to a few who judged themselves to be novice associates.
When the eleven associate teachers responded to the question about any benefits to them in this approach to lecturer supervision, the themes that emerged from their comments were more about the benefits ensuing as a result of the students’ benefitting. Overall, the associate teachers reported no problems with this strategy and they were happy with the same lecturer completing all evaluative visits. They had a “big” picture of the student's teaching. If a certain area was an issue or wasn't covered they had seen it before or knew if it was a problem. They had also seen the student develop and could see if some areas were developing as they should. They knew the student's strengths and weaknesses clearly. (AT5-2011)
Two of them wrote about this being a win-win situation for them as their student was more comfortable and at ease during the observation and evaluative visit. In their comments, they suggested that the initial phone contact with them was positive. Most other suggestions by the associate teachers relating to retention or change to this strategy focused on the topic of time. One suggested that time was well spent and a strength of the strategy. Two suggested more time was needed for the associate to talk with the lecturer while two others commented on more general aspects such as time of the day for the visit and the need for the lecturer to arrive on time. The one variation was a 2011 associate teacher suggesting that there should be two different lecturers for the final visit if the student teacher felt his/her relationship with the associate teacher or lecturer was not positive in nature.
The practicum experience for the researchers
Overall, the experiences of both evaluative lecturers/researchers were positive and mirrored those of the student teachers and associates. It was professionally rewarding to work alongside the same students observing growth in their practice and confidence throughout the programme. Discussion following observations was more closely focused through being able to reflect on identified strengths and weaknesses from previous practicum periods and provided in-depth and targeted feedback and feedforward. This contrasts with the existing protocols for other student teachers where different lecturers visit students on practicum each year and the cumulative, shared history is not as easily accessible for later visits. In terms of lecturer workload, time commitment and expense to the university, there was little impact from this alternate strategy, aside from the time involved in the liaison phone calls. All lecturers are expected to undertake a certain quota of either liaison or evaluative visiting and this alternative arrangement merely resulted in a redistribution of focus for the two lecturers rather than a substantial increase in time spent on travelling and visiting.
Discussion and conclusions
This study has investigated the perceptions of a small group of student teachers, their associates and university lecturers towards a change to the practicum visiting strategy currently employed by this institution. Comments in the online surveys over a two-year period indicate a clear preference for the alternative pattern employed whereby the two lecturers carried out both liaison and evaluative functions with the same students across all three of their school-based teaching practice experiences.
There are a number of limitations in this study. It was indicated that this was an initial study and so a small sample group of student teachers and associates was appropriate. It would be of value to now implement the strategy across the total cohort of students in the distance programme. This would allow for sampling of views from a wider representation of the associated groups and a greater likelihood that the strategy could be evaluated when issues such as personality conflict and bias, alluded to by some participants in the current study, become a reality. The absence of a control group of student teachers following the traditional pattern of practicum visiting is also acknowledged as a limitation and with involvement from other researchers in a more substantial study this could be addressed. This study reports the perceptions of the student teachers which are a recount of their only experience. While these student teachers may have talked with their peers, they had no other experience to draw comparison from, unlike the associate teachers and university lecturers who mostly had a range of different experiences with student teachers. For the associate teachers, this may have included a range of teacher education providers.
Each practicum, while providing the student teacher with a community of support and allowing opportunities for development also has the potential for stress and tension, as previous research has also shown (Caires et al., 2012; Murray-Harvey et al., 2000). Results from this study clearly demonstrate the potential for repeated visiting to alleviate such pressures typically associated with evaluative visits, often carried out by a lecturer who has no established professional mentoring relationship with the student. The associate teachers, who mostly had a range of student teacher supervision experiences, affirmed the views of the student teachers as being more settled and prepared for the evaluative lecturer’s visit. The university lecturers also found that these student teachers were more attuned to the moment in comparison with other student teacher visits. The importance of effective relationships in reducing tensions was also reported in previous research by Ferrier-Kerr (2005).
Returning lecturers provided a stable element as the student teachers progressed from one school community to the next; a consistent variable as associate teachers and class groups created a range of opportunities for the students to develop their identity, role and capabilities as teachers. As each round of practicum visiting evolved, the lecturers developed a greater depth of knowledge of the students’ unique journeys and their particular strengths and weaknesses, and the role of mentor was enhanced as a result. Support to student teachers and associates was evident when mentoring conversations focused on exploring progress and achievements over time and reflecting on practice and learning over several experiences (Le Cornu et al., 2001; Lind, 2004).
The knowledge gained by the university lecturers was the basis of professional conversations with student teachers and associate teachers, which included greater emphasis on opportunities for reflection, theorising of teaching and constructive long-term feedback. While enhancing the relationship between lecturer and student teacher was significant, this strategy also elevated the associate teacher’s feedback (Ferrier-Kerr, 2005) as the university lecturers engaged in deeper, more meaningful conversations about the progress of the students.
An associated theme that accompanied the concept of each lecturer knowing his or her student teacher well was the future focus of each visit. Because the student teacher was expecting to meet the lecturer again they talked about ‘next steps’ and therefore discussion was more specific and focused on future goals and actions for the student teacher and how the associate teacher could support these. The student teachers expected and received guidance for future practical experiences in their learning teaching programme.
Lecturer completion of evaluative requirements for these practical experiences within the teaching degree should also be considered in assessing the alternate strategy. The themes discussed above indicate that lecturers are more fully informed of a student teacher’s progress and hence assessments are more accurate and evidence-based than with the existing visiting strategy. One of the student teachers commented that this strategy modelled effectively the assessment principle of utilising many and varied sources of evidence to inform a complete picture. While a snapshot in time is important, it must be used to supplement ongoing information about learning (Lind, 2004), so the ongoing conversations with the student teacher and the various associate teachers provided the varied sources of evidence to support evaluative decisions.
While phone calls with the student teacher and associate teacher may have been the starting point of the professional conversations for each of these practicums, which corresponds to findings in the literature (Hoben, 2006; Le Cornu et al., 2001; Lind, 2004; White, 2006), it was also the start of extending the student teacher’s community of practice by making the connections between the associates and university lecturer. This gave the student teachers a sense of belonging and contributing to a real community (Grudnoff, 2011) where they would learn teaching and develop their own identity. Conversations across the community of practice are reported as critical to the development of teachers (Beck & Kosnik, 2001; Ferrier-Kerr, 2005; White, 2006). While it is normally not practical for university lecturers to engage with the student teachers in the same way that the associates are able to within the traditional practicum structure (Borko & Mayfield, 1998), this strategy showed that the lecturers had developed sound knowledge of their student teachers.
In terms of management of this alternate visiting schedule, there were no major issues. One student teacher reported that they would have liked more time for discussion and four (across the two surveys) would have preferred face-to-face liaison visits prior to the evaluation rather than phone calls. Lecturer workload, the distances across which these students were located and financial constraints all impacted on these aspects of time and face-to-face contact. Nearly all student teachers reported that this strategy for practicum visiting involved no extra commitment in terms of their time or workload. In fact, one student suggested the opposite. She said: ‘I knew from past experience what I needed to do and was confident going into my visit’ (ST6-11). For these student teachers, any limitations or challenges were outweighed by the beneficial and believable advice and guidance provided as feedback following observations, the openness of learning conversations that evolved as a result of the unique and special bond developed through their professional mentoring relationship, and the complete and continuing picture that developed from the same university lecturer returning to each practicum. The same evaluative lecturer has the ability to take these into account having knowledge from previous years conversations and observations to put together a complete picture for us, a far more valuable tool in terms of helping us to grow and develop as trainee and beginner teachers. (ST2-2011)
As lecturers, we are convinced that for teaching practice assessments, where students are assigned a visiting lecturer who remains with the same student for the three years of their programme, a positive and productive relationship can be built up between the student and the lecturer as their mentor. We have observed the advantages of visiting students and their associate teachers over an extended period of time, which has equipped us to more accurately evaluate the practice and learning of the student teachers. We have also benefitted from developing a positive and professional mentoring relationship with these students and their associate teachers. Successful practicums are critical (Sim, 2011) and this strategy certainly enhanced the experience for these distance student teachers.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interest
None declared.
Funding
This research received a small funding grant from The University of Waikato's Faculty of Education research committee.